Comparing Timmerman, And T. M Scanlon

In choosing whom we ought to help through the distribution of resources in a life or death situations, how should one go about making a difficult decision on whom we will help. John Taurek, Jens Timmerman, and T.M Scanlon all propose different methodologies that can assist us to make such decisions either through the means of fair chance, or aiming to minimize deaths/injuries. Nonetheless, I will be arguing in favor of Taurek’s proposition that we should flip a coin, because his methodology is the only one of the three that ensures everyone is treated equally and fairly. Whereas Aggregationalism and Timmerman’s proposed method of decision making treats everyone equally, but unfairly. Therefore, this essay aims to object to Timmerman and Aggregationalism,
Insofar that an individual has become persuaded by Aggregationalist thinking to aid the larger group (Taurek 306). Problematically, this methodology leaves minority groups with no chance of receiving aid. Significantly, Taurek attempts to demonstrate the issue with Aggregationalism through the thought experiment with David, and the five strangers. Where we are given the choice of whether we should distribute a lifesaving resource to help a single individual (David, a person who is considered our friend), or we could divide the resource in to five fractions save five strangers. In these situations, we would Ideally want to help David out of the special obligation that he is our friend. However, Taruek’s final thought experiment with David depicts him as a stranger to the reader (305, 306). Problematically, if we did not know David, then we would respond in the situation to helping the larger group. Taurek wants to avoid this phenomenon of how we would instinctively choose to preserve the many, and this consequently causes us to neglect the few. Taurek asserts that our intentions should be aimed at wanting to help everyone equally and fairly, insofar that we should see that all human lives possess value (306). In effect, this leads to Taurek’s main proposition. Where if we are given the option of helping two parties, we should flip a coin. This is because we ought to hold the value of everyone equally, and not resort to quantifying their value by the size of the group they are in. Significantly, this ensures that both parties are given an equal, and a fair chance of receiving aid (304). Furthermore, this ensures that the group minority has a fair chance of receiving aid, rather being neglected by the prima facie appeal of helping a larger group of people with the same